Monday's Letters - Savings that cut at heart of 'The Big Society'

Volunteers are the backbone of this country and essential, their efforts backing up most frontline services – their dedication and care often going unrecognised and unrewarded, from the carer looking after aged parents to the RNLI who daily risk their lives to help others.

However, I question if this new initiative of using volunteers to lessen the strain has been thought out properly. It sounds a brilliant cost saving idea, but I have reservations – especially as one of the first casualties of Cameron's cuts has been here in the Wolds of East Yorkshire.

Homestart is a charity that has trained staff and volunteers that help families who struggle to cope with any numbers of issues on a day-to-day basis – families who would normally turn to and overload the local NHS practitioner or social services – either that or become another failed statistic having resulted in violence or suicide.

In the past, East Riding Council helped to finance the Wolds Homestart even though the group were not within their budget, recognising the essential services it provided, by using any surplus unallocated funds it had available. However, since taking power, the coalition Government has demanded the return of any unused council funds nationwide, and therefore this year's promised finance and lifeline to Homestart – some 37,000 – has been rescinded, resulting in staff redundancies and dozens of trained volunteers finding themselves left idle – their training and expertise wasted.

The Wolds area is not actually classed as a deprived area – yet the Pocklington Homestart team were helping far more families than the Goole and Bridlington teams put together – unfortunately, that team is no longer operational thanks to this cut.

Is this Cameron's idea of The Big Society? Then if it is, I think we are all going to find that without the necessary funding, we really will find ourselves back to basics with no help whatsoever.

From: Karl Sheridan, Selby Road, Holme on Spalding Moor.

We should take pride in tolerance

From: Chris Sinclair, Wessenden Head Road, Meltham.

WHILE agreeing in some senses with AB Collier (Letters, July 22), I feel Damian Green is correct in saying that it would be un-British to impose a ban on the burka. In this country we embrace multiculturalism, whereas in France it is expected that everyone adopts the national culture. The French ban may well be posturing, and could be subject to legal challenge in the future.

France has far fewer people wearing the burka or niqab, and many of these are visitors from the gulf states shopping there. It is hard to believe that the local police will wish to arrest many wealthy shoppers.

The one positive side to the French ban is that the coercion of women into wearing the veil carries a much heavier punishment than the wearing of one.

With regard to crash helmets, there is no law demanding their removal in public places. As far as I am aware, only the owners of private property have the right to insist on their removal, and are entitled to do the same with the burka.

As for a referendum on the issue, we elect and pay politicians to take considered decisions on our behalf. Referenda should only be used for constitutional matters.

Tolerance is a virtue we should take pride in.

Terry Palmer, South Lea Avenue, Hoyland, Barnsley.

Prior to the General Election, Tory leader Dave Cameron was telling us how tough he was going to be. Of course when the real problems surface he shows us just how cowardly he really is.

France has voted overwhelmingly to ban the burka in public with Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Italy and Holland all on the verge of a ban. Yet Dave shies away simply because he is afraid of upsetting the Muslim Councils of Britain. Even Islamic Syria has introduced a burka ban. If Dave is running scared then let the people decide by referendum.

From: R Potter, Low Lane, Grassington, Skipton, North Yorkshire.

WITH regard to our Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman's support for the burka, perhaps she could explain where the law stands if a burka-wearing motorist knocks down and injures or kills a pedestrian, but cannot be identified due to the facial cover.

I think she must agree that it could cause big problems.

Value of marriage

From: John Riseley, Harcourt Drive, Harrogate.

ARGENTINA now joins a growing list of countries which have asked themselves if there is any reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and decided that actually there isn't.

We in the UK instead adopted the institution of civil partnership to give the same practical effect under a

different name in order to protect the brand image of marriage. Is there still a role for this two tier system and if so what is it?

The threat to marriage doesn't come from same-sex couples. The need is not to preserve an image but to restore one that has long been tarnished. Those who balk at gay marriage yet countenance serial divorce and remarriage have cherry-picked the old rule book and come up with what for them is a very convenient morality.

It was fundamental to our traditional concept of marriage that spouses could not simply be replaced at will. It then came to be seen as a matter of humanity and decency that those involved in a failing marriage should be afforded the opportunity to divorce and to form a new relationship on an acceptable basis. At that time this meant to remarry. It is remarriage which devalues marriage.

By throwing civil partnership open to all, we can legitimately close marriage to those who have married previously. This would tell people something relevant about their own marriage; that it's the only one they're getting.

High price of monarchy

From: Philip Smith, New Walk, Beverley.

DOES Paul Andrews (Yorkshire Post, July 22) think that Prince William's extra security costs – 1.4m so he can live off his RAF base with his girlfriend – are also good value for money? If so, he is in a tiny minority.

His brother Harry's escapades in Afghanistan have also necessitated huge extra security costs as he has made himself a more likely target for terrorists.

The real problem of course is that information on most Royal costs is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, as is indeed the unethical lobbying activities of Charles Windsor.

There is hope. Last week, I attended the end of term concert at a local primary school. The first item played was the national anthem. People stood up eventually but not one person sang

the anthem.

Those who think that football fans sing the national anthem loyally should know that they are singing "God save our gracious team" and "Send them victorious" for the most part. God save us all from unearned, unelected, hereditary and unbelievably expensive privilege.

Trident is an exercise in expensive futility

From: Malcolm Naylor, Grange View, Otley.

It is extraordinary that there are still some misguided people who think that Trident is needed and even more extraordinary that they think it protects us and would never be used. Trident is an exercise in expensive futility.

The notion that a nuclear threat will prevent invasion is provocative to potential enemies and fosters the idea that military strength is all-important. All this does is encourage countries to seek alternative ways of intimidating others. It promotes war. It does not prevent it and has no effect whatsoever on the Iraq and Afghan wars nor on terrorism.

These people sum up the state of civilisation today. Barbaric, self-seeking and unintelligent.

Do Trident supporters envisage it ever being used? And if it was, what effect would this have on the future of the whole world?

And do they think an enemy would believe it would be used, always assuming that we first get permission of the Americans. It is America who controls Trident not us. All we do is pay for it.

It is unfortunate that there are still supporters of this obscene weapon and that anyone would ever contemplate using it. And there is the ever-present danger of accidental operation.

The most effective deterrent against antagonising other nations is to stop intimidating, interfering, exploiting and provoking them. This is something that Britain and America excel at. Understanding and accepting that there are other ways to live might help. But then there is no profit in that.